Even in the early days of our universe, inflation was running rampant.

James webb is what happens when society gets nice things

The problem with the theory is that scientists refuse to consider that they're not seeing the full picture based on only our oberservable capabilities. It's entirely possible what we see is due to a much larger landscape of space than our telescopes can see

I like listening to Brian Cox. Especially when he says, “we don’t really know” “we don’t have the knowledge” and “science does not disprove the existence of God”. Theories, theories, and more ever changing theories. All interesting!

For those of you who say, "Well, what happened before the big bang?" I have your answer. It was the big foreplay.😉

What Brian Cox is not mentioning, is the full developed galaxies several billion years away. In accordance to earlier theories, these should be in a "new-born" status since the light was sent from them a "short" time after the Big Bang. This have made many astronomers think of the possibility that the Universe is INFINITE and has been so eternally.

I am so glad that these things are being questioned/re-considered. I like how Brian said, today the expansion is accelerating but maybe at some tipping point in the future, it may change. That's what I want to hear, the uncertainty of our understanding of how dark energy/matter will behave or interact once the expansion overtakes some other unknown limit? Who knows, maybe dark energy has one last trick up its sleeve as the expansion gets to a certain point. Maybe it has happened elsewhere, another universe/bubble/black-hole, another time/iteration? Universe pretty much recycles everything, would be a shame not to eventually recycle itself.

The question that has bothered me is: What did the Big Bang expand INTO? And could there be other big bangs occurring somewhere else?

Maybe there have been multiple big bangs, we don't even know where the matter/energy goes when it is goes into a black hole, or what dark matter or dark energy is - there's much to learn

Science Time is *infinitely* BETTER than all the rest in the multiverse, friends. The narrator is excellent and easy to listen to…length of vid. is purrrfect…& Dr. Cox is a long-time fave of mine. Ya can’t find a nicer guy…always friendly and humble…& truly BRILLIANT, as well! TY for sharing this AWESOME new video…luv it, and appreciate a LOT…& ALL your others, too!!!😌

The total mass M needed to reconcile gravitational and electrostatic states is M = Mo /(2Pi - 1) (alpha2), where Mo is the observed mass of the universe, (2Pi - 1) is the Bell inequality (ever an inequality in the macroscopic world), and (alpha2) is the square of the fine-structure constant (a optical magnification factor, twice applied for virtual and real expression). In the quantum realm, the equation is undefined, because the radius is equal to the circumference, meaning that Pi = 1/2. The number of unit circles (or squares) in the universe is M/m, where m is the present-day rest mass of the electron. For a unit circle to become a unit square, Buffon's needle problem becomes applicable, where one side is electrostatic and the other is gravitational. In order for the PROBABILITY to equal 1/2 (regarding Bell's inequality AND Buffon's problem), Pi = 4, meaning that Pi = 1/2 AND Pi = 4, implying that 1 = 8; hence, the qubit (used in quantum computing) is emergent. (My observations and derivations-- no citation needed.)

That background music is 'to die for'; really helps!

Gravity is attractive, but I like it for it's personality.

Roger Penrose has the simplest, though strangest idea so far. Yes, multiverses would have been more fun, and is actually not excluded by Penrose’s theory, however Penrose’s suggestion is in line with Einstein’s theory of relativity, though the role of quantum physics then would be undecided or unclear in CC.

I have always wondered why the question about there being more matter than antimatter is a problem. If a Feynmann diagram is anything to go by, at the Big Bang, most matter would go forward in time and most antimatter would go backwards in time. These 2 Universes would exist but not interact and the illusion of time would be equivalent in both universes... But then I am no physicist.

Thankfully knowledge is a constantly evolving and changing thing. The more we discover the more we realise how little we know and how much we have to revisit older theories and create new ones.

I think mankind as a species likes to think of beginnings and endings but there should be no reason not to postulate that the universe always existed and always will- possibly in different forms

For very large R the definite integral of R over time T approaching origin of the universe to the present day is approximately 1/2 of R2, verifying perceived dichotomy (a weird quantum nuance, where areas AND number of unit circles or squares are indistinguishable).

This is why science works - it constantly questions itself, examines, re-evaluates, tests and re-formulates working theories and laws, without anger or prejudice, constantly evolving and refining itself.

The problem is that this isn't the whole question. The universe is a constant repetition of "Bangs" or a continual repurposing of matter from uncountable events. We had to have a model to explain the origin of the universe although we never quite considered the origin of elements which allowed such an event to happen in the first place. Then this whole Big Bang Theory turns into a rabbit hole because the origin needs an origin too doesn't it?!

I find it curious that what is commonly called the space time continuum appears to be 13.8 or so Billion years old . This is based on the distance measured and a lot of other factors , but how can you do this without allowing that time itself more likely than not directly connected to speed . higher speed are affected by the time dimension differently from lower speeds . Maybe inversely?

I have to say that part of the reason these misinformation theories survive is that their videos have titles like 'The Big Bang Didn't Happen' but then videos like this on the other side go with a clickbait title rather than 'The Big Bang Did Happen.' So if you just look at all the titles you completely get the impression that the theory is wrong, because none of the title suggest it is correct.

2:47 one of the most mind-blowing parts of this video is seeing “expansion of the universe” written in comic sans

So the Big Bang Theory isn't "wrong," it's just incomplete.

It actually sounds like like bunching and "un-bunching". I like to think of it as the "standing wave" created by an accident on a highway. Meaning, you have crash, creates a stop and go pattern that still exists long after the it's been cleared out and cleaned up. If you look at it from a helicopter you'll see a 1D/2D pattern of "waves" flowing on the highway as the cars stop and go based on traffic flow. I see this in all things. Just like your picture of the travel through time as the energy becomes photons becomes atoms, etc etc... to us. It was like a big purple sponge your displayed.

I was always under the impression that with the big bang time started ticking and space started expanding and after that, the rest of the forces, matter etc. followed... Or in other words, there was no universe or time before the big bang.

I can't help but imagine that TIME itself is not a constant, but we are so accustomed to the rate at which we perceive the passage of time that it's hard to account for a possible change in its properties. Could we be attempting to measure the size/age of the universe with an ever changing ruler?

Question for any physicists: will there be a time when all the light from the start of the universe has collided with something so you couldn’t see that far back anymore?

I always had trouble with the Big Bang theory, it hurts my brain to think about the whole universe crunched up to the size of atom. If the data supports it I will have to accept it. But it still hurts my brain. I am desperately hoping for an explanation that doesn’t hurt my brain so much.

I don’t understand how a cool down of the universe equates to an increase in energy and subsequent acceleration. So it would seem there is a physics that would explain the CMB , the 380,000 year gap to where light began to be emitted, as well as the noted acceleration of the universe. But the one we are trying to promote needs a lot of tweaking.

Depending on proximity, some things will always increase their distance from you at an ever-quickening rate. Say your standing in a large field, 1000 ft from a street, and a car goes by, going, say, 60 mph. the distance between you and the car will increase at an ever-quickening rate as the car continues on; it's just simple geometry.

They need to launch 5 or 6 more james webb telescopes and link them together into an earth orbit around the sun size lense

Gotta love Brian Cox. It's all about understanding the known universe. Outside that which can't be known it could be infinite, now that hurts the brain. I feel comfortable with the idea of the universe always existing in various states.

They didn't mention any detail from the refuting paper, what was the reason for doubt?

(@5:44) Not sure if statement is wrong on: "Webb's observations actually supporting the big bang model, showing that the first galaxies were smaller and grew larger over time just as big bang cosmology predicts". As far as I understand - correct me if I'm wrong - universe expansion / dark energy implacts only distances between galaxies and not the size of galaxies by itself. Statement above mentioned is a little bit vague and doesn't mean anything and I'm not sure if Brian Cox could agree on that statement.

The Question Is: Is the universe the accelerating, or is time slowing down?

The best thing is that everyone in the comments are talking about the theory. Unlike Neil Tyson, Prof. Cox draws attention to science instead of just focusing on him.

If it's expanding more quickly than it did in the past, then as you back in time it's expanding ever more slowly. The problem is that as you go back in time you get the point where it's not expanding at all but it's not at a singularity. Is distance an illusion?

I don’t think that just because we incorrectly predicted how long ago the Big Band was means that the entire theory is wrong

Could it be what we see way out in space may not actually be there now ?

There could’ve been multiple big bangs. We don’t even know what the Big Bang was how it happened or what existed prior

How about photons making matter and antimatter pairs that normally, but not always annihilate each other back to photons. Maybe sometimes an event horizon separates them. Black hole, sure, but maybe there is one for time, too. Could be the same thing. How about antimatter sometimes gets separated from matter and goes back in time.

I never learn anything from Brian Cox, because his voice is so darn pleasant and relaxing that I always end up dozing off to it.

I think with quantum entanglement,,, we might be in some kind of "2d" universe, and possibly not perceiving light/distant space correctly at all due to our perspectives. 🍃🍃

New here. Good video, I found it interesting and entertaining.👌

Is the "oldest light in the universe" really just that, or is it the oldest light we've detected in in the observable universe? Or put another way, does anyone know the estimated delta between the size of the Universe and the observable universe?

I think "where did the universe come from" is the wrong question if the universe has always existed. I guess people just have a hard time accepting infinity as an answer.

Everything is possible in this universe. Because there is space for everyone's thoughts.

Albert Einstein made contributions to physics. His brother Frank made well he made a monster.

Photon entropy (decay) causes the background redshift and the expended energy provides its propulsion at c, the speed of light, by the "right-hand rule" e-m field.

When I took my astronomy course in 1967 astronomers were still puzzling out the difference between the 11 billion years age calculated from expansion and the 12 billion years age of globular clusters. I'm glad they got that straightened out.

We see things expanding locally because we can only see locally. We don't know what is happening further out than we can see. We also don't know what is happening bigger than we can see or smaller than we can see. Even our tools have limits to how large and how small they are able to detect.

This is what makes me wonder, what exactly is the space outside of the universe expansion that allows the universe to expand into it? If the universe is expanding.... what existed before it expanded.

I have a question--could it be possible (as technological advances happen) to find galaxies existing before the Big Bang happened. With Webb they have found large galaxies existed before anticipated. I am just asking.

According to this farther galaxies have a more red light or red shift so it is therefore presumed that they are accelerating away but the point to note is that the red coloured light is the light that can travel much farther, just like stop lights are red so that they can be noticed from far away because a red colour can be seen more clearly from farther away than any other colour of light. Similarly, high communication towers have red blinking lights so that even in fog or bad weather airplanes can notice them. Keeping this in mind, maybe the red light coming from distant galaxies is only because that part of visual spectrum is able to reach JW from that far away and not because of accelerating away.

I suspect that the estimate of the red shift is somehow off. Here are some possibilities: A) stars burned redder in the earlier universe and that has thrown off the redshift estimate. B) the older that photons get the more they naturally shift to the red, irregardless of the distance they traveled. C) the actual age and distance the early stars are from us is incorrect and that has thrown off the estimates. Or, D) They have not properly compensated for the fact that early stars were moving faster in the distant parts of the universe but have slowed down to the same speed that nearby stars are moving. After all, we are looking at light from over 10 billion years ago, so we don't know what's happened out there now.

A theory can be wrong or updated where fundamentals of it won’t change. Ie, a white hole within an existing universe is an update

Our current understanding of the workings of our observable Universe reminds me of someone trying to balance on a “high Wire” using the long pole which they tip one way and then the other. We don’t fall, but we are always in danger of falling. Everything we think we know could evaporate tomorrow in the light of new findings. We could Fall! Personally I have no “sacred ground” to defend. When you set limits your instinct is to stay within them. I prefer the objective detective’s approach and I let my mind go where the evidence leads it. I don’t have to understand it, that may or may not come to pass. I am an objective observer on the journey. I have no “Axe to grind”. All I want is “To Know and understand” if that is possible. So when I am faced with a Barrier to my understanding I think “What If” and step into the unknown.

It seems so...but a lot of us knew this already.

The question is what is time and why does gravity and our own consciousness seem to be affecting it?how can the start of our own consciousness begin like the mystery of the Big Bang itself?

Weird theoretical question: say we find a mirror in space that is pointed at the earth since a long time. if we would find it, could we observe the earth's past?

I recently saw this commendable-but-comical post at another web site: "There is no such thing as 'space' as we know it; there is matter everywhere; everything is in constant motion, appearing to be entangled by "gravity' doing its job, that is, directing traffic!"

A group of Soviet experts conducted by Prof. Herouni using radio telescope came to a conclusion that there was no Big Bang.

I think we'll find out one day just how big the universe REALLY is; and that we will also quickly realise that we will never be able to see so far back (due to how light travels).

What is the decision on the number for the huble constant

But, what you can have is high energy particles which is the basis of galaxies formation.

The problem with the Big Bang comes when we try to visualise it, which is utterly impossible...

I laughed at every episode. If that's so wrong, I don't wanna be right. Bazinga!

Funny how 6 months after this video was released, the JW Telescope found galaxies that shouldn't exist if the "Big Bang" theory was correct.

But of course light is stretched from distant galaxies. That's a part of an expansion. It doesn't mean the expansion is speeding up. Think of the universe as a sponge that slowly expand after being compressed. The part of the sponge closest to your point of view will appear to have expanded slower than the pats further away. It's not only galaxies that are expanding compared to each other. It's also space between them. Therefore light will appear in a different color. It's what you could call an optical illusion

America just spent more time watching the Wednesday show than the entire planet has ever spent on discovering space mysteries. Imagine what we could accomplish with some priorities.

we believe that universe is infinite, but yet we always treat it as if it was expanding somewhere, it's baffling to me. In this part it just expands.

New information isn't overturning BBT, it's refining it. When it comes to science, things can only get better.

It seems the big bang is about as descriptive as seeing cars on a highway. You can look at the cars and the road to figure out where the cars are and where they were, but it tells you nothing about where they originally came from or how they were built. We can tell the universe was smaller in the past, but we don't know it started from a singularity. We don't know how supermassive black holes formed in the time allowed. Maybe they were already there or formed along with the hydrogen and helium.

Cox is awesome! A++ Sir.

I can accept the Big Bang, but have trouble accepting the size, density, mass, etc of it's starting point. Have heard it was infinitesimal small in size. How the entire Universe started from something the size of an atom is a hard reach. If it was the size of a galaxy, or solar system, I can accept that. Energy is neither created or destroyed, it just changes from one form to another. If the entire Universe has x amount of total energy, all of it would have to be inside the tiny starting point. The mass of entire Universe would also have to fit inside the tiny starting point. I have seen papers claim there was zero mass at start. Nice try, but that does not fit any basic model.

It does seem counterintuitive for eternity to have a sudden, temporal beginning.

In a corrupt and false society, is the acceptable majority ever right? "Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. ... I maintain also that substances, whether material or immaterial, cannot be conceived in their bare essence without any activity, activity being of the essence of substance in general." (Gottfried Leibniz, 1670) "For the time being we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics which can be regarded as its logical foundation." (Einstein, 1940) "Finally, if nothing can be truly asserted, even the following claim would be false,
 the claim that there is no true assertion." (Aristotle) "No two or more substances can have the same attribute and it appertains to the nature of substance that it should exist. It must therefore exist finitely or infinitely. But not finitely. For it would then be limited by some other substance of the same nature which also of necessity must exist: and then two substances would be granted having the same attribute, which is absurd. It will exist, therefore, infinitely." (Spinoza) "But maybe that is our mistake: maybe there are no particle positions and velocities, but only waves. It is just that we try to fit the waves to our preconceived ideas of positions and velocities.The resulting mismatch is the cause of the apparent unpredictability." (Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time" 1988) "We must not conceal from ourselves that no improvement in the present depressing situation is possible without a severe struggle; for the handful of those who are really determined to do something is minute in comparison with the mass of the lukewarm and the misguided. ...Humanity is going to need a substantially new way of thinking if it is to survive!" (Albert Einstein) "You and I are all as much continuous with the physical universe as a wave is continuous with the ocean." - Alan Watts "What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning" (Werner Heisenberg) "The writer of originality, unless dead, is always shocking, scandalous; novelty disturbs and repels." (Simone De Beauvoir) "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." Schopenhauer "I must confess that a man is guilty of unpardonable arrogance who concludes, because an argument has escaped his own investigation, that therefore it does not really exist." David Hume, 1737 "A man who is being delivered from the danger of a fierce lion does not object, whether this service is performed by an unknown or an illustrious individual. Why, therefore, do people seek knowledge from celebrities?" Idries Shah “Science is more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking; a way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility. . . If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then, we are up for grabs for the next charlatan (political or religious) who comes rambling along.” -- Carl Sagan, May 27th 1996 “Verily, when good is hungry it seeks food even in dark caves, and when it thirsts, it drinks even of dead waters.” Kahlil Gibran “..it is utterly impossible for me to entrust anything to future ages without its first being passed through the hands of those that have an interest in suppressing it.” - Rousseau "..scientific training is not well designed to produce the man who will easily discover a fresh approach." (Kuhn, 1962) "History abundantly shows that people's views of the universe are bound up with their views of themselves and of their society. The debate in cosmology has implications far beyond the realm of science, for it is a question of how truth is known. How these questions are answered will shape not only the history of science, but the history of humanity." (Eric Lerner, 1992) "I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." (Erwin Schrodinger talking about Quantum Physics) “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ― Upton Sinclair * "Commendation from NASA for research work at Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the Earth's atmosphere and the Moon's surface for navigation of the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon.. Dr. Milo Wolff has found the structure of the electron consisting of two spherical quantum waves, one moving radially outward and another moving radially inward. The center of the waves is the nominal location of the electron 'particle'. These waves extend infinitely, like charge force. All 'particle' waves mix and contribute to each other, thus all matter of the universe is interrelated by this intimate connection between the fundamental 'particles' and the universe. The natural laws are a direct consequence of this Wave Structure of Matter (WSM), thus WSM underlies all of science." "Gravity is caused by the mass-energy density of space. This mass-energy density of space is determined by the square of the Wave-Amplitude and is always positive (squares are always positive). The wave-velocity is inversely proportional to the mass-energy density of space, the higher the mass-energy density of space, the slower the Wave-Velocity. As Matter and its resultant mass-energy density of space are always positive, this causes a slowing of In-Waves as they travel through other matter/wave-motions, and it is this property of Space that causes the natural ‘Gravitational’ attraction of all bodies, and explains why Gravity is always attractive." (Geoff Haselhurst) wave structure of matter spaceandmotion

The Big Bang is possibly one of several according to Penrose (and of course Fred Hoyle).

So they’ve moved the Big Bang goal post from “just give us 1 miracle of everything from nothing” to “ok everything existed before the Big Bang in a cold universe where time existed AND where it was very cold AND where everything was expanding…

We will never get the answer to this question and most others, because we were never meant to .

Can antimatter destroy an entangled particle? What happens to it's partner particle? Can antimatter particles entangle? How did expansion exceed the speed of light? Does information in entangled particles take place faster than the speed of light? Why has over fifty years of string theory not produced any break through in physics?

Universe is never ending

Yes , and and so is a few other theories , with lots of rewriting of books to follow .

Propagation of space is counterbalanced by being curved and, in fact, 'consumed' by massive objects, like black holes. Big Bang would suggest an explosion some sort of. Explosion is when something expands into empty space around it. But, expansion is when space propagates (there isn't any empty space around it), and it is a very slow process, that's its noticed only in empty voids between clusters of galaxies where there is not much mass to curve it and absorb. The more empty space, the space propagation is faster, and that's why the universe seems to accelerate in growing! We don't normally notice space propagation around us because it is curved and 'swallowed' by massive objects - gravity. What fun... isn't it?

When two universes touch...gives rise to fresh big bang...

Creationists and other such anti science types grasp at anything in their attempts to prove science wrong and creation correct. They have no problem misrepresenting things that are said either.

we will never know…

Why would it slow down and then start speeding up faster and faster ? Why is there a mature galaxy with a supermassive black hole at the center just 430 million years after the Big Bang ?

Basing the existence of the Universe on the observation that it appears to be expanding is simplistic and I'm surprised the theory has lasted as long as it has. It ISN'T expanding, it's recycling/recirculating in a way we don't yet understand.

Every universe has a big bang. The issue is not whether big bangs occur, but if they are unique and all of the same size and age. One model is the champagne multiverse. In some places, matter, space and time collapse into a black hole: on the other side a universe with new space, time and matter is formed - it has experienced a big bang.

Man's brain and theories cannot ever completely figure out what truly happened. It is as simple as that. There had to be something that was always there.

The only problem with the ‘Hubble Law’ that I have is that the wavelengths of older light from the more distant galaxies are stretched more than closer galaxies - since we are all expanding on the same ‘fabric’ then the universe’s expansion is SLOWING DOWN NOT ACCELERATING People claiming that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, to borrow a phrase from popular culture, are just not thinking 4th dimensionally

The uncertainty in the measurement of the physical constants is mute testimony to their rate of change, and to the age of the universe which is much older than 13 billion years.

Big bang theory is not a one time event. It's a constant event that happens an infinite number of times.

💖💖💖

"Denial is not a river in Africa." Numbers and predictive ability (like I have previously demonstrated on this site) matter (rather than finding explanation after a discovery, presently being done with BOTTOM UP BBT): Per my TOP DOWN cosmology, the radius of the universe on a quantum level is R = Root (M/m), where M is the total mass of the universe needed to unite gravitational and electrostatic forces and m is the rest-mass of an electron, yielding, Ke^2/ R^2 = RGm^2/ R^2, where K is the Coulomb constant, e^2 is the square of the charge on an electron, G is the universal gravitational constant, and m^2 is the square of the rest-mass of an electron. The calculated mass at a quantum level, including "missing mass," is M = 1.58079 x 10^55 power Kg, and the calculated radius of the quantum realm is R = 4.16574 x 10^42 power measured in instantaneous, dimensionless units. (M is undefined in the quantum realm, yet partially discernable as the observed mass Mo of the universe in the macroscopic world,). The number of unit circles (or squares) in the quantum realm is R^2 = 1.73534 x 10^85 power. It is a quantum attribute that area of unit squares and number of unit squares are indistinguishable (No need for citation, as all stated derivations are my own.)

follow any particle backwards in time and you will find a 'big' bang (dont't take much of a theory to disregard an idea of everything moving in seperate ways need to have the exact same point of origin )

Too many people in this world are too ready to jump on any controversial bandwagon to dismiss or question what we understand without good reason and without evidence. Not enough Professor Cox's.

I find it cute that humans think they can theorise with any certainty how the universe began